From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e55245590c829bef
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: _Type vs no _Type
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:52:03 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccfwvf5qp8.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <86wroy58ff.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <iale5p$2f6$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <86pqup5xfy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <becbd7a4-89e6-4d81-b7d8-7d18ac75c1f9@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <86y69d3rec.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <ian4b2$p9h$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <82lj5c5ecm.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <iapnmm$p5j$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <op.vlj5fgv0ule2fv@garhos> <m24obz1nkj.fsf@pushface.org>
 <82zktq4n9b.fsf_-_@stephe-leake.org> <iaurli$fml$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <wcczktnbsk7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ib1llq$8mp$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1288997523 21443 192.74.137.71 (5 Nov 2010 22:52:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:52:03 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zxMrKZmHPEl6VbKsdqs1GsVl9Qk=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15297
Date: 2010-11-05T18:52:03-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:

> Not thinking about indentation is fine. It would also be fine if you
> never thought about type identifiers. But using _Type doesn't eliminate
> thinking about type identifiers, just thinking about /good/ type
> identifiers (the most important kind of thinking).

Well, you still have to think of something /good/ to go before
the "_Type".

> I disagree very strongly with the single-letter idea. Although I have
> seen plenty of single-letter parameter names, I have never seen a case
> where it was appropriate, or where a little thought couldn't come up
> with good names.
       ^^^^

But, you see, some folks, including me, think single-letter parameters
names ARE "good", in some cases.  Here's an example (from the GNAT
sources, file sinfo.ads):

   function Abort_Present (N : Node_Id) return Boolean;

The body of this function is short, so the single-letter "N"
doesn't get lost.  What would you call it?

It could just as well be "Node" or (in Not-Ada) "node_id",
but that doesn't add any useful information to the reader
of the program, IMHO.  And named notation doesn't make
sense for calls to Abort_Present, no matter what the
parameter name is.

What about operators?  The Ada RM says:

    function "+"(Left, Right: T) return T;

but I think that's just silly.  I usually say:

    function "+"(X, Y: T) return T;

Named notation never, ever, ever makes sense for operators.
And if the body of "+" is short, single-letter
names are crystal clear.

Verbosity is good when it imparts useful information to
the reader of the code, but not otherwise.

- Bob